User talk:Cimon Avaro

Your recent edit to Ip dip (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 06:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice comment at WikiEn-L just now. DGG (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Eventualism

I liked your following comment on meta. It made me feel good.

"Me too! With the added qualification that for me Eventualism is encapsulated in the idea that either everybody will eventually agree with me, since I am right, or I will eventually learn the truth, because I am willing to learn." A.Z. 05:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Pulse (demo group)

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Pulse (demo group), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}.--Gavin Collins 08:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Bridge of Khazad-dûm

Notability is established by references, not by assertion (see Wikipedia:Notability), so I have restored the {{notability}} tag on Bridge of Khazad-dûm. Please do not remove it unless and until the subject's notability has been established through non-trivial references in reliable sources.

Thanks--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Facebook about to be deleted

Hi, as one of the people with a picture on Wikipedia:Facebook, figured you might be interested in knowing that it is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Images of Wikipedians (2nd nomination). - Ta bu shi da yu 03:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A Wikipedia meetup in Helsinki?

Hello! Are you interested in a meetup for contributors of the English language Wikipedia in Finland? If so, please comment at Wikipedia:Meetup/Helsinki (and, of course, invite other Wikipedians you know who might be interested). Cheers, --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Captain Obvious

An article that you have been involved in editing, Captain Obvious, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Obvious (3rd nomination). Thank you. lk (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Citizendium

You said "What may be in the future for Citizendium as a milestone, is the point where they have a single article or more that they feel compare favourably, or which outside evaluators compare to be better than wikipedias. That may well spur on a real race on the highest quality of both encyclopaedias articles, which could in the end either benefit both projects, or derail them into focusing only on a narrow apex of articles, and forget all about the long tail."

They have such articles. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer and http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer_in_prokaryotes are far far better than Horizontal gene transfer.WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Unusual articles

Actually, people make edits all the time without discussing them first. It is a wiki, after all. That said, do you have any specific objections to my edit? Feezo (Talk) 10:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member!

I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with, today it's the turn of the "B"s and "C"s! I'm hoping at least one of you chaps will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but scary! :) ++Lar: t/c 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

From one member of the peanut gallery to another

Regarding this, I agree the statement was poorly phrased. What it seems to be referring to, though, is a phenomenon I've often watched in disputes where an editor assumes good faith of one party by imputing bad faith to the other. If editors want to live by the spirit of WP:AGF then what they really ought to be doing is making their best effort to assume positive motivations of the people who aren't already in agreement with them. Sometimes disagreements are a matter of priorities or perspective. Does it make more sense to think of it that way? Durova^Charge! 06:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I do find it kind of amusing to see you think you can claim to be among the audience, after so vociferously claiming affiliation with the people pulling the strings amongst the backstage workings. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be crystal clear where I stand. When *I* approached Jimbo Wales to the effect of asking him to remove editing priviledges from someone, that *someone* was not a new editor much later arrived than myself, but a much more senior editor, in far better standing than myself (and he still continues to edit, to my great pleasure), and furthermore, in asking Jimbo to consider whether that editor should be barred from editing wikipedia, I made a specific stipulation that should Jimbo feel it useful, each and every word I used in the e-mail, was his to use as he saw fit, attributed to me, claimed as his own or whatever. None of it I claimed private or priviledged communication. This I think very much illustrates a highly divergent perspective from one you seem to have been blessed with. I hope you see where I am coming from. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 05:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not very clear at all. I never used IRC, not on any channel. I did join a list called cyberstalking because - well - the name should be obvious. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. A lot of things have been said about me and attributed to me that I never actually said or did; it's like looking at a caricature of myself to read it. But if I'm unwelcome I won't bother you again. I apologize for the interference. Durova^Charge! 06:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well. Your first posting is amazingly vague, there above. And now you are referring to IRC and to cyberstalking, though I have not mentioned either. What are you really trying to say. I won't enter into shadow boxing matches, but I will not in anyway let anyone think that your and my situation are comparable. I may have decided to have not pressed issues where more forceful people might have done so. That does not make me somebody who has decided to be an onlooker, rather than an actor. So I think really trying to fish for sympathy from these quarters is not something you are well advised to pursue. That much I can say without hesitation. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Skulk

I've started a stub for skulking Jimfbleak (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Skulking, not skulk Jimfbleak (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree about Wrentit! Jimfbleak (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

RfD nomination of You are here

I have nominated You are here (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

	Happy Birthday	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Cimon Avaro a very happy birthday on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Don't forget to save us all a piece of cake!

--Nadir D Steinmetz 00:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

rufous

It's nearer red than brown, Jimfbleak (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I wasn't sure what you meant at first. Thank you. 4 years old! Belated greetings for your birthday last month. --Oldak Quill 14:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Moleskin

A tag has been placed on Moleskin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 01:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

IRC

I am Soms. Somitho (talk) 06:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)